Pictures of the craft responsible for the "Phoenix Lights" from Mt Wilson CAL. over a year later??

I brightened the image and increased the contrast a bit then enlarged 2X. I see what could be a triangular shape.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/2443c13c3228.jpg[/atsimg]

If it's a long exposure how come there are no star trails? Even in the close up the appearance of the stars would suggest either a tiny amount of camera shake or something maybe a few seconds long. Still nothing new on here to see people ignoring the evidence because they already know the answer.

reply to post by FireMoon


Same reason why the stars aren't blurred in this photo:

reply to post by gift0fpr0phecy

I honestly did not know web cams used long time exposure
thanks for the info.even so I still dont see it as conventional aircraft,
Im not saying its alien just plain ufo.
thanks for all the input, I wish the person that took the screenshot would have given an email or name,I betcha watching it live you could tell if there were faa lights on this unidentified craft.

reply to post by Chadwickus


They are blurred.

reply to post by paradiselost333


It is no ordinary webcam. Actually, it's a real camera inside a box.

Camera info.

At night they increase the exposure time so you can see stars better.

reply to post by FireMoon

Originally posted by FireMoon
If it's a long exposure how come there are no star trails?

Because the exposure time isn't long enough for the stars to make streaks. The exposure time of the OPs image was 16 seconds or less. Stars really don't move fast enough to make streaks in 16 seconds or less.

Compare these two images:

25 second exposure of stars
15 minutes exposure of stars

www.danheller.com...

The first rule of thumb to remember is that the Earth rotates such that the light from a star begins to "move" after about 15 seconds. It's apparent movement is largely dependent on your lens—the longer the focal length, the more apparent the movement; the wider angle lenses won't show much movement till later because of the star point is so small.

Stars don't even begin to move after about 15 seconds, so 16 seconds wouldn't show star streaks. Plus the webcam has a wide angle lens on it, so the stars could move and it would be so small of a movement that you couldn't see a streak in 16 seconds.

Originally posted by FireMoon
Still nothing new on here to see people ignoring the evidence because they already know the answer.

Yes, I am watching you ignore evidence and FACT that the OP's image is a long exposure.

Because it is a long exposure, it means any aircraft that shows up will leave long streaks exactly as you see in the OP's image.

On top of that, if this was a massive object flying over Burbank, which is Los Angeles County, someone would have seen it. Los Angeles is one of the largest cities in the world, someone besides a random guy looking at a webcam would see this in person.

It's a jet streak... This is debunked...

Looks like a ski slope on the mountain to me.
But what do I know.

reply to post by gift0fpr0phecy


says you
I disagree... debunked I dont think so, it could be alot of things and a Triangle shaped craft of some sort is with in the realm of possibilities just my opinion though

reply to post by paradiselost333


Good for you, believe what you want. I don't care how wrong you are.

It is debunked... but of course, people like you will hang on to every little thing to support your beliefs.

Let me ask though....

Are you suggesting a super large craft flew over one of the largest cities in the world and only one camera caught it on film? Only one person saw it?

reply to post by Arbitrageur


"It sounds like you're referring to the 10pm event. That was confirmed to be flares."

That sounds interesting to me because I still hear about it as if it were real. Even over the last year on C2C if have heard about it being talked about as a real landing.

But I always ask: Did anyone drive out to the area to look for evidence afterward?

I never get an answer.

One more thing and I will "shut up" about this off topic idea.

I spent 22 years in the Marine Corps. I was primarily in artillery. I have seen all kinds of formations using what we call "Illum" rounds that re the strict product of computations and gunner accuracy.

I have also seem C130 flare drops ALOT.

That original film looked to me like C130 drops in the way they opened up, the kind of light made by them as they slunk behind that mountain range, and in the way that extra BRIGHT light made ghosts in the video. I always thought that but never heard anyone say that flares were confirmed.

It's nice to see a post about this by some non "Its gotta be a space craft" hypnotized person!

Thanks!

nevermind

Originally posted by paradiselost333
Im not hanging on nothing , I just am not going to discount this as a Plane(although that is possible) just cause you say its debunked!

Don't listen to me because I say it's debunked. LISTEN TO THE EVIDENCE I BROUGHT FORWARD. The camera is set for a long exposure, I already proved that, its a FACT. The image even shows signs of being a long exposure... What you see looks EXACTLY like an aircraft would if it was filmed over a few seconds of time exposure. I even showed FAQ that get asked to the operators of the camera the image was taken from, and they often get questions about UFO's when an aircraft gets filmed in a long exposure, from that same camera.

What you are hanging on is a deluded theory that it is a huge UFO, even after evidence was found that it is an over exposed image. Think about it... it's an over exposed image.... the image represents about 16 seconds of time. If that was a huge craft, it would have to be floating above one of the largest cities in the world for 16 seconds without moving.... and nobody saw it! Thats just not possible, sorry... It's a debunked theory. Period.

Originally posted by paradiselost333

Im not saying its alien either . It "to me" looks like some sort of huge craft, maybe a secret project, who knows

I know now. Evidence has come forward that suggest the object was just a normal aircraft being exposed to film for multiple seconds of time. And is common from that camera.

Originally posted by paradiselost333
I admit that I cannot explain everything I see maybe you should, then again maybe not:

I have been researching UFO's for so long, and have been studying physics, light, matter, optics, everything, that there is hardly anything I can't explain. I'm sorry that doesn't sit right with you. If it sounds cocky, I don't care.

Answer my question that you ignored: Are you saying a huge craft floated above one of the worlds largest cities and only one camera filmed it?? Only one person noticed?? Do you realize how many airports are in the area in the picture??

reply to post by gift0fpr0phecy


I get it, yea for sure it could be a plane ,hell I dont know what it is!! All I was saying is IMO it looks like a Triangle
There are prolly a bunch of airports around does not prove that its an aircraft .I know your opinion and you know mine so lets quit filling up the thread arguing back and forth
just want to say it does not look like any long time exposure i have ever seen , and I have taken quite a few myself . I know what the info on the webcam said but you have to keep in mind this is 1998 prolly a completely different set up.
Was just sharing these so I could get very informative opinions like yours, thanks for contributing

reply to post by paradiselost333


About 10 years ago, I was going through Albueqerque (can't spell it) about 2 to 3 in the morning and something that looks like that came in low right over the freeway and the car making a landing at the AFB there. I was way too tired to give a darn, but it DID look like a triangulat air craft.